The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint can be quashed if it is found to be motivated and mala fide, amounting to an abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to call for the records in Crime No.3121 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent police and to quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed seeking to quash the F.I.R. filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC in Crime No.3121 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The crux of the allegation in the FIR is that the second respondent / first informant is an Advocate and an office bearer of Thiruvotriyur Bar Association. According to him, he is in possession of around 2852 sq.ft. of land belonging to Kaligambal Temple and he has kept his household utensils there. It is further stated that on 14.07.2021, he came to know that some persons entered his premises and removed his articles and also torn the banners, immediately, he gave a complaint to the police and as no action has been taken, he filed a petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotriyur and pursuant to the direction given in the said petition, a FIR has been registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to quash the said FIR and would submit that filing of the FIR is calculated and motivated only in order to grab the property, which is under the control and possession of the petitioner’s mother. It is his contention that the petitioner's mother has purchased the superstructure measuring an extent of 2852 sq.fts from one S.Baby W/o Subramaniyam, by way of a registered Sale deed dated 28.04.1980, registered as Document No.872/1980, in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thiruvotriyur. He further submitted that water tax and property tax stands in the name of the petitioner’s mother and she is regularly paying the taxes to the authorities. Electricity service connection also stood in the name of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's mother has let out the premises in the year 2008 to one Mr.Karthick for doing business and he has vacated the premises on 12.07.2021. Due to lock-down, the said tenant defaulted in payment of electricity charges for two years and due to which the electricity service connection was was disconnected.

4. The learned counsel further submitted that on 14.07.2021, at about 6.00 p.m. he came know through neighbours that persons wearing black and white dress entered into the petitioner’s premises and tried to lock open the premises in order to take possession. When the petitioner rushed to the spot, he was threatened by the Advocates. The petitioner lodged a complaint and the police enquired the petitioner and the second respondent. The petitioner was requested not to press the complaint against the second respondent who is an Advocate and the said complaint was closed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, when the petitioner made an application for restoration of the electricity service connection on 05.08.2021, he received a SMS from the Electricity Department that his application is put on hold for verification with the EB officials, as already another person by name Mrs.Lakshmi, the wife of the second respondent herein, has applied for electricity service connection for the very same premises belonging to the petitioner’s mother and therefore the EB officials have withheld both the applications. Thereafter only the petitioner came to know that the second respondent has created some residential certificate and produced the same before the EB officials in order to grab the property.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thereafter, the second respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 the learned Judicial Magistra